> It's sad. For all the lamenting that the US is losing industrial capacity (or lost it long ago), we can't even handle some of the lightest industry possible. A big building that hums and releases slightly warm water, and the only sector in which we could still be called a world leader.
No. Data centers have very, very few positive externalities for the people who live around them. They employ very few people, use a lot of infrastructure and resource, to provide services for people far from the community.
And on top of that the technologies they enable are loudly marketed as things that could destroy us all, or at least take most of the well-paying jobs.
If they're so great to live by, build them in Atherton.
> The point of industrial capacity is a positive externality for the country not that it makes someone's backyard prettier.
Yeah, that' true. What's the problem with building them in Atherton, then? The nation will get the same positive externalities if they're built there.
Hell, build ones ringing the houses of Sam Altman and Dario Amodei. Larry Ellison has a whole island that could be filled with data centers. Seems like those are the best places for them.
Everyone wins, right?
I'm tired of the "some of you may suffer, but that's a price I'm willing to pay" BS.
Technologists would be thrilled to build them in California? This is such a weird and fake criticism, California has driven manufacturing and industry out of the state, SF tech companies don't want to build in Nevada, they are forced to by regulations.
Like, none of the things you proposed doing are legal in the jurisdictions mentioned. It is NOT LEGAL for Sam Altman to build a hyperscale data center in his backyard. It is NOT LEGAL for Larry Ellison to build a hyperscale data center on his island.
It's bad to criticize people for not doing things the legal system prohibits them from doing
> Technologists would be thrilled to build them in California?
I'm certain none of the people actually ordering these things would be thrilled to have them anywhere near where they actually live. If they could build them in California, they'd find some rural area or poor neighborhood to drop them in.
> Like, none of the things you proposed doing are legal in the jurisdictions mentioned. It is NOT LEGAL for Sam Altman to build a hyperscale data center in his backyard. It is NOT LEGAL for Larry Ellison to build a hyperscale data center on his island.
Oh, how very convenient for them.
How about they sic their lawyers on California to make it legal, instead of some rural county government? Get an initiative on the ballot rezoning a billionaires' actual places of residence and adjacent land for datacenter construction, and flood the airwaves supporting it. Make some campaign contributions!
They used to bring lots of jobs which didn’t require specialization. That’s not saying they didn’t have real negative impacts but that people were more willing to accept that as a tradeoff when it was a middle-class living for an entire neighborhood. Data centers are getting resistance now because anyone who lives nearby is getting pollution and higher prices with no compensation: they’re not going to work there and it won’t employ enough people to even boost home values.
Sadly we’re at the point where it’s a controversial position to argue that they shouldn’t receive tax cuts. It’s impressive how successfully faux-libertarian propaganda has been at breaking support for the idea that companies should pay for their impacts on others.
No. Data centers have very, very few positive externalities for the people who live around them. They employ very few people, use a lot of infrastructure and resource, to provide services for people far from the community.
And on top of that the technologies they enable are loudly marketed as things that could destroy us all, or at least take most of the well-paying jobs.
If they're so great to live by, build them in Atherton.